- A book that changed your life: The Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky [Pevear/Volkhonsky translation])
- A book that you've read more than once: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Phillip K. Dick)
- A book that you'd want on a desert island: The Liturgy of the Hours.
- A book that made you laugh: Father of the Bride (Edward Streeter)
- A book that made you cry: The Fifth Son (Elie Wiesel)
- A book that you wish had never been written: Mein Kampf ("My Struggle", Hitler)
- A book that you hope someone will write: An update of Tocqueville's Democracy in America.
- A book that you wish you had written: The Closing of the American Mind (Allan Bloom)
- A book that you're currently reading: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (Kant)
- A book that you've been meaning to read: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism (Plantinga).
Friday, March 1, 2013
Book Meme
It's been awhile since I've seen this making the rounds on Facebook. So I figure I'll offer up responses of my own. To say what should be obvious, I'll exclude the Bible (since it would fit most categories below), I'll limit it to one book per category, and I won't put the same book in multiple categories (even though it might deserve it).
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Snow Day!
KU (the University of Kansas) is closed today because of snow. Turns out they'll also be closed tomorrow! This doesn't happen very often. I started here in Fall 2009 and, since then, we've had 2 snow days. (Campus has been closed other times, but most of them are during Christmas break when classes aren't in session anyways). But back in Feb. 2011, we got a Tuesday and a Wednesday off for a big snowstorm. And now we've had a Thursday off and we'll get a Friday off tomorrow for another snowstorm. If I had to pick, I'd rather have a Thursday/Friday off than a Tuesday/Wednesday. :)
Even the concept of having "Snow Days" is weird to me. Since I was homeschooled my whole life, I never really had to take a day off because I couldn't get to the school. When your books are in the living room, the transit time is pretty minimal. Of course, we got plenty of days "off" for other things (debate tournaments, museum days, etc.), and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few days here or there taken off to go play in the snow. But those weren't days taken off because I physically couldn't make it to the school building.
Bizarrely, we're similarly situated here - we live on-campus so even when there's plenty of snow I just have to walk to campus past the basketball arena. It might take awhile for me to make the walk, but I don't think there's ever been a time when I couldn't walk to campus if I had to. But even if I can make it to campus, plenty of my students commute in from KC or Overland Park and it would be unsafe for them to drive so far. I'm glad they cancelled classes.
Of course, since I'm a grad student, my work is never really "done", even if I get a day off teaching. But I might ignore some work tomorrow for a bit and play outside with James and Joy. Maybe drink some hot chocolate too. Seems like it'll be a good day for that sort of thing. We should have snow days more often. ;-)
~Benjamin
Even the concept of having "Snow Days" is weird to me. Since I was homeschooled my whole life, I never really had to take a day off because I couldn't get to the school. When your books are in the living room, the transit time is pretty minimal. Of course, we got plenty of days "off" for other things (debate tournaments, museum days, etc.), and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few days here or there taken off to go play in the snow. But those weren't days taken off because I physically couldn't make it to the school building.
Bizarrely, we're similarly situated here - we live on-campus so even when there's plenty of snow I just have to walk to campus past the basketball arena. It might take awhile for me to make the walk, but I don't think there's ever been a time when I couldn't walk to campus if I had to. But even if I can make it to campus, plenty of my students commute in from KC or Overland Park and it would be unsafe for them to drive so far. I'm glad they cancelled classes.
Of course, since I'm a grad student, my work is never really "done", even if I get a day off teaching. But I might ignore some work tomorrow for a bit and play outside with James and Joy. Maybe drink some hot chocolate too. Seems like it'll be a good day for that sort of thing. We should have snow days more often. ;-)
~Benjamin
Monday, February 18, 2013
Blizzards vs. Blizzard Cakes
So recently it was my birthday. I laughed, I cried, it moved me Bob, and all suchlike things were true. And, in return to form, I decided to get a Blizzard Cake from Dairy Queen. We've been munching on it for the past few days now and - yummy! - still have some to go.
But while eating this ice cream delicacy, I started wondering what would be cheaper: A mondo-sized blizzard cake or a bunch of individual blizzards? Honestly, I assumed the cake would be cheaper. It's larger and can be made at once (so, I would think, lower labor costs than making a bunch of individual blizzards one at a time). But, since this problem is quantifiable (unlike most of what I work with, experimental philosophy notwithstanding), I decided to run the math.
Dairy Queen serves two sizes of Blizzard Cakes: 8 inches and 10 inches. We opted for the 10-inch "Cookie Dough" cake at a (pre-tax) price of $25.99. Unfortunately, the cake itself doesn't include its own weight on the label but DQ's Nutrition Information website gives us the information we need. Therein (after clicking on DQ Cakes and selecting the appropriate 10 inch variety), we are told that 1/10 of the cake weighs 306 g. (There is some ambiguity here since my cake is definitely labeled "Cookie Dough Blizzard Cake" yet the nutritional information is for "Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough" - I think it's likely that these two cakes are actually the same, label variance notwithstanding, but that could be an error on my part). Regardless, if 1/10 of the cake weighs 306 g, then 10/10 of the cake weighs 3060 g. This is just a hair under 6 3/4 lbs - and although I didn't weigh the cake when I first bought it, this number seems plausible. So 3060 g of DQ Blizzard Cake costs $25.99.
Now we just compare that cost to a requisite amount of Blizzards. Since the cake weighs 3060 g, and large Blizzards are 21 oz, we need to convert. 21 oz is just about 595 grams, and a decent cost estimate is that a large blizzard costs $4. (There's a nontrivial amount of regional variation there, as well as the fact that BOGO coupons are [relatively] easily had, or other sales, etc.). 3060 / 595 = 5.14, meaning we'd need to buy 5.14 large blizzards to get an equivalent amount of ice cream to one 10-inch cake. 5.14 blizzards would cost us $20.56.
So we could spend $20.56 buying 5.14 Blizzards (or, more realistically, $20 buying 5 Blizzards) or we could spend $25.99 buying the same amount of ice cream as a Blizzard cake.
I grant that there are aesthetic differences, or that one might prefer cakes to cups of ice cream, or any number of other differences justifying the cost difference might obtain. Nonetheless, the price difference between cakes and Blizzards is nontrivial; buying a Blizzard Cake costs 21% more than just buying the equivalent amount of Blizzards. Put another way, buying individual Blizzards you could buy a cake's worth of ice cream plus an extra Blizzard (thus getting yourself an extra 21 oz of ice cream) for the same price as one cake. I don't know about y'all, but next birthday I might just forgo the cake altogether and get 6 Blizzards instead.
Let me know if I messed up the math. Meantime, I'm going to eat some leftover Blizzard cake. :-p
~Benjamin
But while eating this ice cream delicacy, I started wondering what would be cheaper: A mondo-sized blizzard cake or a bunch of individual blizzards? Honestly, I assumed the cake would be cheaper. It's larger and can be made at once (so, I would think, lower labor costs than making a bunch of individual blizzards one at a time). But, since this problem is quantifiable (unlike most of what I work with, experimental philosophy notwithstanding), I decided to run the math.
Dairy Queen serves two sizes of Blizzard Cakes: 8 inches and 10 inches. We opted for the 10-inch "Cookie Dough" cake at a (pre-tax) price of $25.99. Unfortunately, the cake itself doesn't include its own weight on the label but DQ's Nutrition Information website gives us the information we need. Therein (after clicking on DQ Cakes and selecting the appropriate 10 inch variety), we are told that 1/10 of the cake weighs 306 g. (There is some ambiguity here since my cake is definitely labeled "Cookie Dough Blizzard Cake" yet the nutritional information is for "Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough" - I think it's likely that these two cakes are actually the same, label variance notwithstanding, but that could be an error on my part). Regardless, if 1/10 of the cake weighs 306 g, then 10/10 of the cake weighs 3060 g. This is just a hair under 6 3/4 lbs - and although I didn't weigh the cake when I first bought it, this number seems plausible. So 3060 g of DQ Blizzard Cake costs $25.99.
Now we just compare that cost to a requisite amount of Blizzards. Since the cake weighs 3060 g, and large Blizzards are 21 oz, we need to convert. 21 oz is just about 595 grams, and a decent cost estimate is that a large blizzard costs $4. (There's a nontrivial amount of regional variation there, as well as the fact that BOGO coupons are [relatively] easily had, or other sales, etc.). 3060 / 595 = 5.14, meaning we'd need to buy 5.14 large blizzards to get an equivalent amount of ice cream to one 10-inch cake. 5.14 blizzards would cost us $20.56.
So we could spend $20.56 buying 5.14 Blizzards (or, more realistically, $20 buying 5 Blizzards) or we could spend $25.99 buying the same amount of ice cream as a Blizzard cake.
I grant that there are aesthetic differences, or that one might prefer cakes to cups of ice cream, or any number of other differences justifying the cost difference might obtain. Nonetheless, the price difference between cakes and Blizzards is nontrivial; buying a Blizzard Cake costs 21% more than just buying the equivalent amount of Blizzards. Put another way, buying individual Blizzards you could buy a cake's worth of ice cream plus an extra Blizzard (thus getting yourself an extra 21 oz of ice cream) for the same price as one cake. I don't know about y'all, but next birthday I might just forgo the cake altogether and get 6 Blizzards instead.
Let me know if I messed up the math. Meantime, I'm going to eat some leftover Blizzard cake. :-p
~Benjamin
Saturday, November 3, 2012
My two theses...
As part of getting my PhD (in philosophy) and going ABD, I have to write and orally defend two theses to the members of my dissertation committee. I haven't defended the theses yet, but they've been approved for me to defend later this semester. I thought I'd post them here. Unlike, say, Luther's theses, mine are long(-ish) paragraphs rather than a series of single sentences. I chose to write one thesis on a problem from historical philosophy and the other on a topic in value theory. You can read the whole text below, but I'll offer my own short summaries in the following paragraph.
The first thesis has to do with Aristotle's understanding of honesty. As surprising as this might be to more contemporary philosophers, Aristotle doesn't really talk about honesty a lot. It gets a brief mention in the Nicomachean Ethics and another very brief mention in the Eudemian Ethics, but that's really about it. A philosopher named David Bostock (who does lots of work on Aristotle) believes, to oversimplify, that what Aristotle has to say about honesty is hopelessly unsatisfactory. So in this thesis I try to take other aspects of Aristotelian thought and show that those aspects can help "fill in the blanks" with respect to Aristotle's view of honesty. My second thesis has to do with Karl Marx and his views of utilitarianism. Marx strongly rejected the ethical position known as utilitarianism (for reasons which I think were basically correct, but that's neither here nor there). However more refined versions of utilitarianism have been presented in the many years since Marx wrote his criticisms. So I wanted to explore whether Marx's arguments applied to all forms of utilitarianism or only to the Bentham/Mill versions of utilitarianism that were floating around at the time Marx was alive. I've always had a bit of an interest in Karl Popper's negative utilitarianism, so I examined it and I'm arguing that Marx's arguments fail to undermine negative utilitarianism. (So although I don't think negative utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory, I do think that Marx's arguments against utilitarianism don't show why negative utilitarianism is incorrect).
That was my own summary of the theses. The actual text of my two theses (which I'll be defending later this semester) follows:
1. Bostock argues that Aristotle's account of honesty in Book 4, Chapter 7 of the Nicomachean Ethics is fundamentally flawed. Bostock advances three claims to prove his thesis. First, he argues that when it comes to our own accomplishments, Aristotle's account is incapable of covering the full range of possible misstatements. Second, Bostock argues that honesty is not in fact confined to statements about one's own achievements in the first place and thus that Aristotle was wrong to so limit it. Third and finally, Bostock argues that honesty does not lie as a mean between two vices and, as such, cannot be accommodated in an Aristotelian ethical system. I answer that the strongest response Aristotle could offer to these charges is to conceptualize honesty as also being a facet of distributive justice as addressed in the Nicomachean Ethics Book 5, Chapters 2 and 3 (and, as such, honesty entails giving each person what she is due). If accepted, this Aristotelian conception of honesty would, on its own terms, be capable of covering the full logical space of possible misstatements about ourselves (either overdescribing, underdescribing, or accurately describing our own achievements). Moreover, such a conception allows us to address instances of dishonesty involving others. Lastly, this conception of honesty entails that honesty can be considered as a mean between two vices; the mean is to reveal what is appropriate, and its associated vices are to reveal too much or not enough according to the degree of honesty one's interlocutor is entitled to.
2. Marx offers three main arguments against utilitarianism, particularly Bentham's utilitarianism. First, in Chapter 3, §6C of the Young Marx's German Ideology he argues that utilitarianism justifies current capitalistic economic systems and, thus, is insufficiently revolutionary. Second, in the same chapter and section of the German Ideology Marx argues that utilitarianism considers usefulness to be of sole importance to the detriment of other important factors in our lives. Third, in the Mature Marx's Capital (Vol 1, Chapter 6) he criticizes the individualism which he sees as being inherent in utilitarianism. I reply that Karl Popper's conception of negative utilitarianism is not subject to these criticisms which Marx puts forth. Briefly, Popper argues that there is an asymmetry between alleviating pain and producing happiness – thus, what morally matters most is alleviating pain and suffering. As such, under Popper's conception of negative utilitarianism, any harmful aspects of capitalism will not be justified and negative utilitarianism would indeed be revolutionary. Further, Popper’s negative utilitarianism is inherently designed to avoid untoward individualism. Finally, Popper’s negative utilitarianism includes not just a principle of negative utility but also recognizes the worthiness of goals other than alleviating pain. These include, for Popper, a principle of societal tolerance and a principle of avoiding societal tyranny. As such, Marx's three main criticisms of utilitarianism fail to undermine negative utilitarianism.
The first thesis has to do with Aristotle's understanding of honesty. As surprising as this might be to more contemporary philosophers, Aristotle doesn't really talk about honesty a lot. It gets a brief mention in the Nicomachean Ethics and another very brief mention in the Eudemian Ethics, but that's really about it. A philosopher named David Bostock (who does lots of work on Aristotle) believes, to oversimplify, that what Aristotle has to say about honesty is hopelessly unsatisfactory. So in this thesis I try to take other aspects of Aristotelian thought and show that those aspects can help "fill in the blanks" with respect to Aristotle's view of honesty. My second thesis has to do with Karl Marx and his views of utilitarianism. Marx strongly rejected the ethical position known as utilitarianism (for reasons which I think were basically correct, but that's neither here nor there). However more refined versions of utilitarianism have been presented in the many years since Marx wrote his criticisms. So I wanted to explore whether Marx's arguments applied to all forms of utilitarianism or only to the Bentham/Mill versions of utilitarianism that were floating around at the time Marx was alive. I've always had a bit of an interest in Karl Popper's negative utilitarianism, so I examined it and I'm arguing that Marx's arguments fail to undermine negative utilitarianism. (So although I don't think negative utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory, I do think that Marx's arguments against utilitarianism don't show why negative utilitarianism is incorrect).
That was my own summary of the theses. The actual text of my two theses (which I'll be defending later this semester) follows:
1. Bostock argues that Aristotle's account of honesty in Book 4, Chapter 7 of the Nicomachean Ethics is fundamentally flawed. Bostock advances three claims to prove his thesis. First, he argues that when it comes to our own accomplishments, Aristotle's account is incapable of covering the full range of possible misstatements. Second, Bostock argues that honesty is not in fact confined to statements about one's own achievements in the first place and thus that Aristotle was wrong to so limit it. Third and finally, Bostock argues that honesty does not lie as a mean between two vices and, as such, cannot be accommodated in an Aristotelian ethical system. I answer that the strongest response Aristotle could offer to these charges is to conceptualize honesty as also being a facet of distributive justice as addressed in the Nicomachean Ethics Book 5, Chapters 2 and 3 (and, as such, honesty entails giving each person what she is due). If accepted, this Aristotelian conception of honesty would, on its own terms, be capable of covering the full logical space of possible misstatements about ourselves (either overdescribing, underdescribing, or accurately describing our own achievements). Moreover, such a conception allows us to address instances of dishonesty involving others. Lastly, this conception of honesty entails that honesty can be considered as a mean between two vices; the mean is to reveal what is appropriate, and its associated vices are to reveal too much or not enough according to the degree of honesty one's interlocutor is entitled to.
2. Marx offers three main arguments against utilitarianism, particularly Bentham's utilitarianism. First, in Chapter 3, §6C of the Young Marx's German Ideology he argues that utilitarianism justifies current capitalistic economic systems and, thus, is insufficiently revolutionary. Second, in the same chapter and section of the German Ideology Marx argues that utilitarianism considers usefulness to be of sole importance to the detriment of other important factors in our lives. Third, in the Mature Marx's Capital (Vol 1, Chapter 6) he criticizes the individualism which he sees as being inherent in utilitarianism. I reply that Karl Popper's conception of negative utilitarianism is not subject to these criticisms which Marx puts forth. Briefly, Popper argues that there is an asymmetry between alleviating pain and producing happiness – thus, what morally matters most is alleviating pain and suffering. As such, under Popper's conception of negative utilitarianism, any harmful aspects of capitalism will not be justified and negative utilitarianism would indeed be revolutionary. Further, Popper’s negative utilitarianism is inherently designed to avoid untoward individualism. Finally, Popper’s negative utilitarianism includes not just a principle of negative utility but also recognizes the worthiness of goals other than alleviating pain. These include, for Popper, a principle of societal tolerance and a principle of avoiding societal tyranny. As such, Marx's three main criticisms of utilitarianism fail to undermine negative utilitarianism.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Secret of the Morn
I must confess I have not heretofore understood free verse. I had always thought that this kind of poetry could be written as prose and sound just as eloquent. But for the first time, I am stuck with words to write that will not form into prose, nor have I the desired vocabulary to rhyme. And so, you are left reading prosaic phrases in poetic form.
The Secret of the Morn
I pull back the curtain to watch the sunrise.
My restless spirit resonates
With the gray scene before my eyes.
"Chirp, Chirp," I hear a little bird.
A small flock of robins have made the tree their rest.
I sit and wonder at the little birds;
Their spirit undampened by the dampness all around.
Merrily they chirp and hop about.
"It's morning! It's morning," they call to one another
Oh! little bird with sunrise on your breast!
What secret of the morning have you found?
They cock their heads in a puzzled way.
And then they begin to sing.
Singing, the secret of the morn.
I pull back the curtain to watch the sunrise.
My restless spirit resonates
With the gray scene before my eyes.
"Chirp, Chirp," I hear a little bird.
A small flock of robins have made the tree their rest.
I sit and wonder at the little birds;
Their spirit undampened by the dampness all around.
Merrily they chirp and hop about.
"It's morning! It's morning," they call to one another
Oh! little bird with sunrise on your breast!
What secret of the morning have you found?
They cock their heads in a puzzled way.
And then they begin to sing.
Singing, the secret of the morn.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
New baby pictures!
I thought I'd try to avoid spamming readers with photos of James (who is, of course, the cutest baby in the world.) Since that's too much work, though, I thought I'd take the easier way out. Photos of James will be on my flickr site. The set of photos for baby James is, currently, here. My general flickr site is, of course, here. So if you'd like to see cute baby pictures, go to Flickr and check 'em out. Here's a teaser or two... :-)
We love him very much. We think he might be starting to get a bit of a schedule down. If so, that will be great news for his poor tired parents. :-p
~Benjamin
 | |
| That's his philosophical look, of course... :-) |
~Benjamin
Friday, July 30, 2010
I've been getting less sleep these days...
I've been getting less sleep these days, and it's rather a new experience for me. I've always been fine staying up late, but thereafter I generally need a good solid eight hours of sleep. More than eight hours, if it's around finals time (using brain power, you see, necessitates more sleep...)
Unfortunately baby James, like all babies, isn't quite in sync with an adult schedule. He's hungry when he's hungry and has no problems informing us of that fact even if it's dashedly early in the morning. Or late at night. Or if he just ate last hour, dirtied his diaper, and wants to eat again. Or it's 3:30AM and he just slept for 30 minutes and is hungry again and...what in the world did we get ourselves into?
And yet, I'm not going to lie, I love him more than just about anything. Seeing his smile, or seeing him hungry, or even seeing him cry just about melts my heart. He's an amazingly happy baby who is nothing more or less than God's special gift to our family. Elizabeth and myself are so grateful that God sent him to us instead of, say, to another family. We don't deserve him in the same way we don't deserve our apartment, our lives, or anything else of consequence. And yet, through and despite our sinfulness, God still blesses us.
I guess what I'm working around to saying is that the 2AM feedings, the snitches of sleep, and the constant mental fog aren't really that bad, all things considered. I sure wasn't really expecting them, but I wouldn't trade them away if it meant spending one less second with our son.
I've been getting less sleep these days, but that's alright with me. :-)
~Benjamin
Unfortunately baby James, like all babies, isn't quite in sync with an adult schedule. He's hungry when he's hungry and has no problems informing us of that fact even if it's dashedly early in the morning. Or late at night. Or if he just ate last hour, dirtied his diaper, and wants to eat again. Or it's 3:30AM and he just slept for 30 minutes and is hungry again and...what in the world did we get ourselves into?
And yet, I'm not going to lie, I love him more than just about anything. Seeing his smile, or seeing him hungry, or even seeing him cry just about melts my heart. He's an amazingly happy baby who is nothing more or less than God's special gift to our family. Elizabeth and myself are so grateful that God sent him to us instead of, say, to another family. We don't deserve him in the same way we don't deserve our apartment, our lives, or anything else of consequence. And yet, through and despite our sinfulness, God still blesses us.
I guess what I'm working around to saying is that the 2AM feedings, the snitches of sleep, and the constant mental fog aren't really that bad, all things considered. I sure wasn't really expecting them, but I wouldn't trade them away if it meant spending one less second with our son.
I've been getting less sleep these days, but that's alright with me. :-)
~Benjamin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)